Commissioners table multifamily zoning merger after extensive public hearing; staff to refine split‑zone and setback options

The Salt Lake City Planning Commission on March 12 paused a proposal to merge the RMF 35 and RMF 45 multifamily zoning districts and to update lot, form and design standards intended to allow "missing middle" housing. After more than an hour of staff presentation and robust public comment, members of the commission voted to table the item and requested staff return with refined options and targeted rezones.

Planner Aaron Barlow and Planning Manager Chrissy Gilmore presented the background and rationale: staff argued that current multifamily rules — especially minimum lot size, lot width, and parking and setback rules — make development infeasible on many lots within the two districts and that the city’s adopted housing plans call for regulatory changes to increase housing supply near transit and employment centers. Barlow summarized the proposal’s components: consolidating RMF 35 and RMF 45 into a single district, regulating by building form with design standards, easing lot requirements to enable for-sale products, adding preservation incentives and unit bonuses for retaining existing buildings, and offering optional incentives for affordable units.

Public hearing and concerns: commissioners opened a wide public hearing that drew community council representatives and dozens of residents. Comments reflected divided views. East Central Community Council chair Esther Hunter told commissioners the proposal is "very, well researched and well done" but asked for more time to fine-tune boundary and property-level assignments so naturally occurring affordable housing in her neighborhood is protected. Central City Neighborhood Council and other speakers warned that reductions in side setbacks (down to four feet on both sides in some forms) combined with increased building height could create "cramped" development that overshadows neighbors and removes residential privacy. Multiple speakers — including longtime landlords and neighborhood activists — expressed concern that affordable housing is not guaranteed by the zoning changes because incentives, not mandates, would produce affordability, and that demolition pressure on older housing could accelerate displacement without stronger preservation tools or mandatory affordable set‑asides.

Staff responses and adjustments: Barlow said staff has already removed a proposed 55‑foot height incentive and reduced cottage court size thresholds in response to public input. The proposal includes measures to discourage parcel consolidation (a maximum lot width of 110 feet) and offers unit bonuses to owners who preserve an existing structure while adding units. Staff stressed that only about 14% of lots would qualify to build larger 20‑unit buildings under the proposed thresholds, and that roughly 30–40% of properties in the two districts are located within local historic districts and have existing protections.

Commissioner deliberations and directions: commissioners praised the depth of staff analysis but also asked for more granular options. Several commissioners said they would prefer preserving two building‑height tiers rather than a single merged height: keep RMF 35 lower scale and RMF 45 taller where appropriate, or rezone specific blocks (block‑by‑block) to RMF 30 in places judged vulnerable to demolition and displacement. Suggestions included using conditional‑use procedures to allow selective step-ups to taller heights, identifying corridors where upzoning to RMF 45 is appropriate, and further refining setbacks tied to building form.

Motion and outcome: Commissioner Berry moved — and Commissioner Mike Christiansen seconded — to continue the public hearing and table the proposal to allow staff to return with the requested refinements, including (1) further review of properties that might remain RMF 35 versus becoming RMF 45, (2) consideration of rezoning targeted properties to RMF 30 where additional protection is warranted, and (3) continuing refinement of setbacks and design transitions between zones. The motion passed unanimously; the commission left the item open to be continued to a later date when staff returns with new analyses.

What’s next: staff told commissioners they would prioritize the refinements and could return at the next meeting depending on the scope of changes required. Commissioners asked staff to prepare maps showing specific parcels recommended to stay lower intensity (RMF 30), corridors suited to upzoning, and an explicit list of proposed design and setback changes tied to building forms.

Ending: The commission’s action preserves time for additional neighborhood outreach and a more fine‑grained mapping approach before any final zoning map or text changes are recommended to city council.